See Also

Reducing College Drinking

by David J. Hanson, Ph.D.

A study analyzing alcohol abuse interventions for college students
has found that harm-reduction strategies such as choosing a designated
driver and encouraging students to drink less are more effective
than urging total abstinence.

“Harm reduction approaches make a great deal of sense,“
notes Dr. Mark Wood, a psychologist not associated with the study.
"First, it's important to note that harm reduction exists on
a continuum that begins with abstinence and ranges to practices
that minimize the likelihood of negative consequences, such as moderating
consumption and using designated drivers. Obviously, the most effective
way to avoid negative consequences is not to drink. However, despite
the minimum legal drinking age of 21, that's not the reality for
the overwhelming majority of college students. Therefore, harm-reduction
approaches reason that it's ultimately more effective to try and
meet someone 'where they're at' and work together to reduce risks
and negative consequences."

The study also found that brief motivational intervention sessions
are effective. The biggest benefit of motivational approaches “is
that, unlike most other preventive intervention approaches that
have been used and studied to date, they actually work in reducing
alcohol use and related problems," said Wood. "Although
we don't really know how they work, there are many likely
reasons. First, MI is a collaborative, non-confrontational way of
addressing behaviors like drinking. It is well suited for use with
'emerging adults,' who are likely to actively resist authoritarian
edicts. Second, the approach focuses on assessing where a given
student is at motivationally and tailors the intervention accordingly.
For example, with a student who is drinking heavily and experiencing
substantial negative consequences, but has given little thought
to changing this behavior, the intervention would focus on increasing
awareness of these negative consequences and both current and future
risks related to them. Third, MI is relatively cost effective, can
be implemented by trained nonprofessionals such as undergraduates,
and may increase the likelihood of additional help seeking. These
benefits are particularly pertinent for mandated students who are
likely to enter the situation in a more defensive and resistant
state."